Reddit reply in r/MuslimAcademics: A Rough Intro to Occidentalism | Is the HCM A Robust Methodology? — March 20, 2025 · mirp79a | Ali Shukri Amin

> I have come across quite a few academics who are transparent about the philosophical underpinnings of the HCM. Within critical theory, for instance, there are serious discussions about the biases and epistemic limitations of Western academia. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen the same level of self-critique within Islamic epistemology, though I’d be very interested if you had recommendations for scholars or texts that engage in that kind of internal critique.

Some of my interlocutors are introducing me to works where some academics discuss these biases and it's much appreciated. However, within the realm of applied sciences like HCM in Islamic studies, I think that a lot is left to be desired. It also seems to me that there's a significant disconnect between those theorizing about the flaws in this methodology and those actually doing the research. Furthermore, I have yet to see most of the specific concerns I brought up here being tackled. Most of the discussion about the flaws in HCM I am being introduced to are still at levels 5 or 4 or at best 3.

Critiquing the methodology where it operates is actually a place I think HCM is relatively strong. My thesis is that it falls apart when you go up the assumption stack because there's a blindspot there. If you know of an author critiquing it at a metaphysical, ontological, and early epistemological level I'd love to read that.

Islamic history doesn't have the same intensity of critique at those later levels. We could learn from HCM in that regard. However the critique at the earlier levels is much higher. Ultimately, the early levels being robust means that the entire framework is much more reliable. If we were able to develop an indigenous intense critique at those later levels that would be even better.

Within the realm of metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology there's no doubt in my mind that the Islamic framework is far more sophisticated and robust. When you get down to source criticism for example, HCM has a leg up. Is there a way to take a rigorous Islamic approach and, on top of it, develop a deeper level of criticism at these later levels? Perhaps.

At some point it would be good to write something lengthy about how Islamic epistemology solves a lot of the problems presented here about HCM. That being said, there is actually a ton of work out there about how these scholars justified and constructed their worldview already.

I think there was less criticism at these later levels because these thinkers felt that if they proved these earlier levels they could all agree on the later levels. Which is essentially what happened. Right now, the Western academy essentially ignores the earlier levels and just debates applications within their fields. That's not a good approach because the models have problems and you're debating things that only make sense within these flawed models, but it doesn't mean that their criticism hasn't become sophisticated at those levels. It just means they're predicating their criticism on unjustifiable grounds.

The real question is whether we even need that level of criticism if the grounds are justified? It could be developed, albeit in a different way. But would anyone who accepts the premises have an interest in that level of criticism later on? I'm not sure.